Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Wikipedia Chase! (resubmit)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Wikipedia Chase!

I fixed up almost all of the article that was suggested by the previous reviewer. Now i just want a second oppinion, now that it's probably better then before...

Yes, it is much better than before. You want a second opinion, so I'll let someone else cast their beadies over it, but it's good that you took action on the review Asahatter (annoy) 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Any bad or good reviews are helpful, as they could help me improve my article writting skills (it's all trial and error!). Thank you.

The Italian Stallion 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 3.5

Inserting Oscar Wilde into random locations is not funny.

Its just not funny. For one, it borders on vanity, or at least what looks like vanity, in some places. I'd get rid of references to "Nicholas W." and "Stephano M." because the just look like vanity.

Second, random name dropping is not funny, especially internet/uncyclopedia memes like Chuck Norris and Oscar Wilde. Its too "listy" in places also. As a general rule, random lists are not funny, and nonrandom lists normally aren't that good either.

I know this contradicts what was said in your last review, but I think he was wrong. You can not save unfunniness by an insertion of random nonsense, filibustering, and lists.

Also, as a rule, you should avoid absurd hyperbole, overkill, and contradiction in your article.
Concept: 5 The concept is appropriate, but can it be made funny?
Prose and formatting: 6 Looks decent overall, but you have too much white space. Try moving images around and remove extra blank lines in order to decrease the amount of extra white space. The white space also makes it look rambling, by making it longer. Also, you might want to get rid of the dead link. Red links make your article look ugly, even if there are only one or two.
Images: 8 I'd put a caption on Image:Wikipediachaser.jpg by making it a thumb nail. I can see that there are custom made images on the page, so you get some points for that.
Miscellaneous: 4 Improvability score. I don't know how you would go about improving this article, there doesn't seem to be much humor hiding in it. However, you might be able to make it work. If you get writer's block on this one, try working on another article. Everybody has written some bad articles, and what looked good as a concept might not turn out to be a good article.
Final Score: 26.5
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my review of the article, I wasn't advocating the insertion of random or non-random lists in this article. The changes made, whilst by no means perfect, do represent an overall improvement, but I don't disagree with your overall assessment of the article. What I was suggesting, and continue to suggest, is that any vanity is removed, and the activity should be treated in the same way as any other well know sport or activity, such as chess or Monopoly. I can't say that this would create comedy gold, but it might, with some trial and error, produce something better than was there before. Asahatter (annoy) 02:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you read "bizarre world records and practices", "introduce fictional competitors" to mean. One person's "bizarre" is another's "dry wit". Overall, I agree with your review. I think I reading some of the author's bad practices into your review the first time I looked at it.--Mnbvcxz 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I can see potential here, but would like to have seen more in the way of turning this into a real competitive sport without resorting to the old staples of Wilde and Norris. As you say, "bizarre" in my review is probably better stated as "arcane", to avoid confusion with "random".
Personal tools